Citizens' veto — good or bad? You decide

There is an assumption made that because New Hampshire sports the third largest English-speaking legislature in the world, its actions are always in keeping with the will of the people.

That assumption, however, is challenged by a proposed constitutional amendment to give voters the ability to reject laws passed by the Granite State's Legislature. This would be done by instituting a limited citizens' referendum process, somewhat like those in Maine and California.

At this point the measure, sponsored by a half dozen legislators, is in committee where it has already drawn criticism and support.

Pass muster or not as the process moves along, it is important this discussion takes place in committee and beyond.

Why?

Several reasons.

There is a common misbelief that New Hampshire is a home rule state — that rights not claimed in the state constitution for the governor and Legislature fall to the purview of cities and towns.

False.

State law in New Hampshire often requires cities and towns to ask permission of the Legislature. A long-running example is the history of state limits on town and city charters. The most recent being contested in court is the right of local voters to institute tax caps, as in Dover.

Another reason is that neither cities and towns nor the Legislature are immune from mistakes, and perhaps it is time to debate how those mistakes can be corrected.

Among the most notable of these is education funding, a hot political potato for decades that many don't consider close to cooling down.

A spinoff of this is the much-hated statewide property tax which will soon bring back donor towns if the Legislature doesn't act.

Of course, referendum votes have a reputation for causing chaos. California is a perfect example with its continuing flow of special interest balloting. It seems that if someone wants the state to build birdhouses on mountains over 10,000 feet it will take the form of a citizens petition.

In New Hampshire, however, the referendum process would only allow voters to reject state law, not institute it.

That means if voters felt strongly enough they could weigh in on current controversies like the LLC tax, education funding, and gay marriage.

This clearly means that allowing referendum votes is a double-edged sword, depending on where you stand on the issues of the day. It also means that some "power" would be transferred from the Legislature to the voters — something Concord is expected to be slow to do.

For these and many other reasons, it is important the debate over CACR 25, the proposed constitutional amendment, not be limited to the committee room in Concord.

If voters want the right to veto those occasional actions of the Legislature that rub them the wrong way, they need to speak up.

Conversely, if voters only see chaos ahead with referendum rights, so be it.

At this point the debate is what is important.

On the Web:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/CACR0025.html

***

While weighing the pros and cons of the referendum process, one should take the opportunity to look at some other constitutional amendments that have been proposed. It may put some perspective on you opinion of a people's veto.

CACR 1 would institute an income tax to fund education. CACR 21 would allow judges and sheriffs to serve after they turn 70.

CACR 23, with some exceptions, would require a two-thirds vote to pass legislation imposing new or increased taxes or license fees.